Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    June 8, 2013 7:00am-7:31am PDT

7:00 am
street frontage is how the roof would look from the neighbors up the hill. we studied that also and looked at it where the roof desk was places and again drawings about brown but we've looked this project from the sides and the erase. all areas were tackled at the meetings >> i'm sure they have been i ask that you read to the speaker or anybody who wants to see that. >> their welcome to contact me. >> thank you. >> any additional comments? >> commissioners that will place you under general comment not to exceed 15 minutes.
7:01 am
the public may address the items of interest and stay with the items. i do have two speaker cards >> okay
7:02 am
support of the family but the football coach get him a part-time job with the fire department. he learned about explosives. he went on to be the captain of football team before a 1942 being with the paratroopers. they trained in britain before they deployed. they earned their nickname because they bathed infrequently and shortly before battle they
7:03 am
shaved mohawks into their heads. a mohawk and camouflage helped. the team brought troops and men. he died
7:04 am
of information with shared literature and with the knowledge of hope and peace >> thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please >> good afternoon my name is mike. i'm here to request a continuance of 4 dot 00 from your june agenda. the basis of the request is that i have a 10 week old ordinance with a complaint, which are
7:05 am
relevant to this case. only today, i received a file saying that the files on the fifth floor would be available and the transportation files would be available to me. this last friday i requested that boxes from iron mountain storage and that project had serious problems. it was the last time that involved the legal demolition of the building. i was told i had received everything that included 5 historical documents from the archives and that was it. i am pursuing the matter because
7:06 am
there are other files i need to see. this file is from iron mountain. i'm sorry i'm not trying to try that across in front of you. i get nervesus. i could not stop the -- the reason the old case files are important some of the technical reports s are 13-year-old. there not done for this project and they already have concerns. i'd like the planning department to have a continuance and they've had several. i was told to show up on the
7:07 am
20th on the agenda and then just ask then are i didn't think that was right. i figured out the process on my own and i am here hoping you'll grant a continuance on the 13th for an continuance there's issues that need to be researched. i don't know how long the continuance is the s f is aware of it. that's my agenda. thank you >> any additional general public comment. >> seeing none, public comment is closed next item. >> commissioners that will place you under your regular calendar. you had one item come off your consent. it's on 6th street request for
7:08 am
authorization >> good afternoon planning commission. i'm with the planning department. our request is our request for a wireless telecommunication facility. it's at the southeast corner that's a hotel. it's considered a coalition site in operating sprint nexus site above
7:09 am
staff believes that's in code and recommend it's approval >> project sponsor. >> good afternoon,
7:10 am
commissioners. i'm director of external affairs. i'm joined today from hemet and edison a professional firm who did the testing. i'm also joined by erick the project manager with the firm. we're seeking your approval to have the 16 antennas on the subject building. this is the wireless guidelines. at&t did decide to do a thorough analysis that turned out to be outside the search range or has higher guidelines than chosen.
7:11 am
this site is necessary for at at to close the gop gap in its wireless projects. we have a heavily traveled street by pedestrians. as you know that wireless is on the rise by smart phones and tablets. they announced with the data has grown tremendously and it will continue to grow. we ask for your support and ask i approve the application before i today. i want to thank the staff for they're hard work. thank you >> okay opening it up for public comment.
7:12 am
there was one gentleman who asked to have it taken off the calendared >> dead on arrival i don't see him. >> any additional comment on this item. someone check outside.
7:13 am
>> is there any additional public comment on this item? >> i'm supportive of this staff report. it goes over the testing of the guidelines. the person who wanted it to be heard asked for assurances and it tested less than one percent on all sites. i think with the number of different sites we're looking at this is ground zero for use so i move to approve >> second. >> on that motion to approve on conditions (calling names) so move it motion passes and
7:14 am
places you on item 10. planning code text kurgs of a proposed ordinance >> good afternoon members of the commission. planning staff. the item before you today is the adoption of the amendments a section of the planning code. in the proposed amendment it's related to the hotel size loud with conditional use allowed in the south market area are in this presentation i'm summarizes i'll summarize the amendment.
7:15 am
and then reiterate the departments representations that the commission adopt a resolution adapting an approval. i have mapdz. i'll put them out for the public and on the overhead. at the may he second hearing the proposed amendments were initiated with the resolution 18854. this was to limit the amendment in order to facilitate a proposed amendment on one of the streets that was approved by the commission. the proposed ordinance would allow the tourist hotels with conditional use on parcels of height designation of 1 hundred
7:16 am
feet and over that. this is the over the heights of 1 hundred feet. currently their allowed to have - this proposed amendment would remove the prohibition of the levels of rooms >> the map i'm putting on this screen - okay. this map show in red the zoning district and there are 3 areas that are solid red. along second street between, if you will, so on so many and harrison streets. those are the areas that would be impacted by the proposed
7:17 am
amendments they have 1 hundred feet and higher. i want to note that area on second street is built out. in addition this map on the screen shows in green the boundary of the central corridor plan and then in black the west area. the additional maps in our package have the height designations within the areas. the zoning district is on the south part of the street and is encouraging office and artists. height designations range from 45 feet to 1 hundred and thirty feet. the highest designation is
7:18 am
limited to that portion of folsom streets. the one hundred and 5 feet designation is on the second and 3 townsend street and on this block there's a parcel for a hotel that has been proposed and reviewed by this commission. and for the benefit of the audience this is that area. a portions of the district is located within the central corridor area. they intended to provided strategies for proposing changes along the streets. this draft includes principles and implementation strategies intended to accumulate growth. and one recommendation of the draft plan is to permit larger
7:19 am
hotels, however, the central corridor plan is to consider a broader change. i want though emphasis that the draft ordinance is a much smaller more targeted approach to amendment controls for a small block of those designations within 1 hundred feet and higher. as poeptd to the ordinance this will facility a project that has been approved. additionally at the may second hearing the commission discussed the roles of the hotel and tourism in the city tourism is the largest industry and 6.9
7:20 am
investors spent 1.9 million in money. tours generated thousands of dollars. however, a more robust presentation about the role of troublesome u tourism in the cities christmas is going to be held this summer. so to conclude the department recommendations the approval the recommend ordinance and attach the resolution to that and i'm available for questions >> thank you. opening it up for public
7:21 am
comment. >> thank you, commissioners stefanone on behalf of david the project sponsor of the 144 king hotel. i believe that the staff report and recommendation appropriately responded and it limits this amendment to a small amen of lots in the district and we hope you will move this forward to the full board. i'm happy to answer any questions. thank you >> thank you any additional public comment? if not public comments is closed. >> i'm really, really happy to see the speed and the he
7:22 am
flexibility and the only thing i would ask have you received a copy of the letter that was written by the chair of the task force and if so, i want to know that is has been for record. i appreciate the involvement. >> apologize for not mentioning the letter it is in the docket and with that i move to approve. and i have a couple questions. first of all, it's my understanding i guess that the areas that are the red mark are the m u o zoning district. those are places with the hotels of any height or any room number would be allowed and they'd have
7:23 am
to have conditional use? >> the proposed amendment before you would all the time the o u district but only on the designation of 1 hundred feet and higher. on the color map on the red area not the hatched red >> if there were hotel proposal on one of those areas and it's less than 1 hundred and 5 feet would it come before us? >> on any circumstance all areas zoned under 1 hundred and 5 feet you can only approve them
7:24 am
if they have that height but 1 hundred and 5 feet or greater than you can approve that provided it meets the zoning district codes. >> there is one already the suits that exists on one of those parcels that are probably above 1 hundred and 5 feet. >> this does not impact existing. >> commissioner. >> never mind. >> no? is there a motion and a second >> there is indeed (calling names) so moved commissions that motion passes unanimously and places
7:25 am
you on item 11. inclusionary affordable housing program for potential >> good afternoon. i'm still planning staff. the proposed ordinance before you would add a new code. in order to have the charter amendment you can approve or disapprove this. the background of the ordinance i'll detail the definition and i'll reiterate the departments recommendation which is to recommend approval. by the way, background san francisco voters adopted proposition c for the housing production incentives and a
7:26 am
among other amendments it added charter to lower and stabz certain projects. it was amended to raise the number of units subject to affordable housing requirement to 10 or more requirements prior it was 5 units. ordinance number 06213 was adopted to implement most of the amendments made to prop c and it became effective. in addition to raising the threshold for inclusionary requirements it included a prohibition on further projects. there were, however, certainty
7:27 am
expectation and one expectation is for areas over 40 acres in size that are rezoned for results for
7:28 am
. while proposition c didn't define the term in question it is proposed to the board of supervisors. that the housing review committee held public hearings and after considering the input the housing review committee
7:29 am
recommended the standards recommended in this proposed ordinance. the chapter included to draft the language and this language has the definition here. and would a zoning codification be introduced. so the proposed ordinance is here so you can recommended the approval or disapproval. that concludes my presentation. i believe that dan and sarah are here to provide further clarification. thank you >> thank you. opening it up for public comment
7:30 am
>> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm with spur. i wanted to speak on behalf of the propriety amendment adoption and ask the commission to approve it. this recommendation does represent all the prop c and the passage of that proposition and we believe the definition does represent what all parties are interested in seeing in this proposal so we ask you move this forward for approval >> any additional comment? >> thank you, commissioners i just wanted to clarify a little bit the